Read Time: 04 minutes

In a plea challenging extension of tenure of Alok Kumar Mishra, Director, Enforcement Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave yesterday submitted, "A lot of eligible officers are waiting in this garb. Every officer has to retire, These are fundamental rules, every officer joins knowing the fundamental rules. It would play havoc Milords, there are officers who are waiting.

A divisional bench of Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai will continue hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who is defending the extension stating that the committee perused the report of the last 10 years and found that all 10 are outstanding today.

The Plea filed by an NGO, Common Cause has also sought a direction against the Centre, for fair and transparent appointments to Agencies like ED, in accordance with Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. As per the Act, the tenure of the ED Director should be of 2 years.

Dave submitted that if the Supreme Court has suggested a period of 2 years, can the executive power be exercised beyond the rule and the constitution.

"If the government would have formed a panel and extended it by 1 month then it is justifiable but not a period of 1 year. Later you'll give an extension of 4 years," Dave added.

However, Mehta contended that the Mishra has to handle important trans-border money laundering cases, more than 9000 Crore rupees returned to the banks in the tenure from the 3 major cases pending.

The Court while rebutting on the contention made said that on that basis he cannot continue till these cases are over.

Dave while referring to the counter affidavit of the Central Government what does the scheme of the CVC Act suggests is that you can give a tenure of 2 years, but what was not intended is that even after the superannuation it can be extended to an indefinite period.

While concluding his argument Dave said that this order is not backed by anything. The entire impugned order is unconstitutional and against the judgment in Vineet Narayan and Prakash Singh.

Case Title: Common Cause v. UOI